http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?em&ex=1171515600&en=74f6eea730d244c4&ei=5087%0A

Marcus Ross is a Ph.D candidate in Geosciences at the University of Rhode Island.  He's just completed ans submitted a first-class piece of original research for his  doctoral dissertation.

He also is a "young earth creationist," and believes in the literal truth of the Biblical explanation of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 year old.

How does he do this?  Read on...

I'm willing to consider some aspects of young-earthers, since they do uncover unique flaws in certain aspects of the self-righteous science community, but then they agenda-twist those small holes they create into ridiculous justifications... This guy makes me feel like a "moderate", lol!

I'm willing to accept that "humans" do not pre-date 10,000 years, and that we are a unique creation that God set upon this planet for this era, but it's asinine to think he whipped up this place and all expanse of the universe 5 days prior to our arrival Especially when the Bible does not asks to believe it happened that way! Perhaps after a little time spent away from Rev.Falwell will result in Dr.Ross's sense returning to him, but it's doubtful...

(He's further proof that a "PhD" means NOTHING in this society anymore!)

(Obviously I cannot do ancient Hebrew on the board, since there's no "plugin" to show characters, but trust me that this modern take is an exact-parallel to the earliest known manuscript)
Here's one tiny example of how the young-earthers lose focus on the commission of the Gospel and act as religous fuck-tards turning off more people than they turn on to Christianity!


If you look at this verse from it's origin, it "leaves room" for natural-but-guided development of the Earth and all around it via "intellegent-design":

בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃
(or)
BUr'aShYTh BUr'a 'aLHYM 'aTh HShMYM V'aTh H'aUrTSh.

(or as below if you're caused to stumble by syntax)

בראשית ברא אלהים
את השמים ואת
הארץ׃

-- Then, we know from Latin that it moves through time and culture to say this, which does not deviate from the fact that God "prepared" this place long before putting us here:

"in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram"

-- Which in the strictest sense it carries it's intended meaning to sound something like this:

"In the beginning of Gods(?) preparing of the heavens and the earth"

-- However, these subtlties go ignored by an early and ignorant church and becomes reduced to this:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

-- And it remains "watered down" in this form for a thousand+ years, during which time people kill each other and wars are faught to maintain the bliss of ignorance... And even NOW it's still used to manipulate and confuse the religous-simpltons that people like Rev.Fall-well and Dr. Ross look for ways to prove out these theories to, by any means necessary! Further gaining and holding the support of their "army"...

The Scripture make a solid allowance for "creation-by-intelegent-design", which would not cause so many accedemian's to stumble, but when the churches insist on practicing acedemic insest, and RULE OUT any other possible meansfor God to have brought "something out of nothing",  then I don't blame the athiest for shouting "fuck you!" and rolling on by...

The "flat-head-young-earth" creationists are more trouble than they are good, and I predict that Hell burns hot for them due to the lies they tell to make their stories believable to the young and stupid home-schooled county-hick that sends his televangical-dollar to the power-monger preachers that support this shit!!

(I'd tell you how I really feel about this, but then I'd have to moderate myself!, LOL!)



-- Modified on 2/14/2007 10:46:38 AM

you still have the title, a Mormon preaching evolution ain't even a contendah... Yes, you are truly unique, & God's laughing much too hard to be able to hold still long enough to  do it again!

Posted by Ben Dover, 2/14/2007 2:28:06 PM   [Ben Dover has 9 reviews]  "Anyways, I do just shoot opinions out my ass 99% of the time, but they are opinions I believe in or have previously informed myself of or even believe INSPITE of evidences presented me..."

nobody's crazier than you, BenD.  

And nobody else has such microscopic balls that they delete posts instead of answering.

system....  I could go on, but I think this speaks for itself... oh, and for the record - I am consevative in my religious views... but this is beyond where I stand..... FAR BEYOND!  You cannot read the Bible "literally"  because even in the Bible - there are warnings that it is difficult to comprehend how God sees the universe.  sheese.... these are really classic examples....

As for how he does this.... easy, NO CRITICAL THINKING REQUIRED!

I just happen to think that carpet-bombing Iran and North Korea with nuclear weapons is not the best way to try to reform their politics.  Clearly, major reforms are needed, but you and I disagree on HOW to achieve those reforms.

I wonder if you really appreciate the dilemma this student posed to his graduate committee.  There is no question about the apparent incompatibility of the philosophy underlying his thesis and his young creationist views.  When I was a graduate student, one of my fellow grad students was an evolutionary biologist who believed that, while the entirety of the rest of the plant and animal world evolved, man was the result of a special creation and, hence, outside of evolutionary analysis.  This individual's views were held privately and were never talked about in the classroom.  We, his colleagues, felt that he had a right to his own personal views as long as he didn't try to subvert his work as a "mainline" evolutionary biologist.  Are you saying that we should have tried to drive him out of the field?

Perhaps you (like I) are suspicious of his ulterior motives --- he seems a little too ready to capitalize on his academic credentials to proselytize for his young creationist views.  Nevertheless, it has undoubtedly required more than a little critical thinking on his part to successfully establish his schizophrenic intellectual state.  (Assuming, of course, that it is not all just sham on his part.)

I dunno, a lot of this is beyond me.

But his scientific training tells him that what he believes as a, if not the, central part of his religious beliefs just ain't so.  How does he NOT think about the obvious conflict?  He's either got to give up his science OR give up a literal interpretation of the scriptures [note, he does not have to give up faith itself].

And i'm not sure if this was touched on in the article, but how does he explain the existence of fossil records far older than 10,000 years if the earth is at most, only 10,000 years?  Or does he have to dispute the existence of any physical artifct dated older than 10,000 years.  Does he say God put them there for reasons unknown?

Of course, that argument leaves a lot more questions unanswered.  For example, how does one exlain all of the observed geological activity on this planet if it all had to take place in the last 10,000 years?  He seems to be a perfect example of the difference between realistic arguments and rationalizations.

one young lady wrote her thesis on a cause of pulmonary pathology in (if I remember correctly) horses.  While the research was ok, certainly not of no bell quality, it was ok.  Good journeyman master's level work.  The problem was she wrote the thing in "black English"!  Not only that, but syntax and spelling within the document was inconsistent... (kinda like TER chat).  In one place through was spelled correctly, in another it would be spelled 'thru' 'threw' or even 'tru.'

At that time the dean, who was a bit of a dishonest person, and the chairman of the department, who is the embodiment of evil, both pushed providing this woman with her Master's Degree, even though her committee refused to grant permission (in what I might say was one of the last true moments of academic heroism) for allowing the degree.   After this act of defiance by the thesis committee, the Dean disbanded the committee, and recruited members of an ad hoc committee from other departments outside of his college.  And even they refused to grant the degree.  So eventually she did get her degree - but by intimidation of the university and threatening the school!  With a lawsuit claiming that they were inhibiting her "creativity!"  So you see, Aware?  I wrote the book on aware....

Worse?  yea, there is worse... things like the Rosalind Franklin story - of Watson/Crick sneaking into her lab to peak at her notebooks!  gimme a break! academic honesty - phoooey...

Brick by brick - I tell ya! and then we rebuild!  Something akin to the Foundation's "Library" as envisioned by Asimov.

-- Modified on 2/15/2007 8:17:39 PM

both science and religion best.  As is, the assertion that evolution is a "fact" is just as flawed as is creationism.  It is a theory - one that explains a lot, but it is far from a provable fact.  And that, my friends is the difference.  Models and theories are just that, attempts to provide a rational explanation for that which is either yet unproven or unprovable.

I would accept this type of reasoning if they are careful to postulate their assumptions up front - and work from there to derive their arguments - Instead many in the scientific and pseudoscientific community neither provide you with their assumptions, nor do they provide you with how their arguments are derived.  Usually, the sentence "you could not understand the complexity of what I am about to tell you" replaces these small and inconsequential omissions.

That being the case, that he believes that the dating mehods are systematically wrong, I suspect he's got an "objection" to pretty much every "scientific objection" to the creationist POV.  Looks like an infinite regression near at hand?

That's not necessarily a killer, however.  Yes evolution is a "theory" which is accepted as a fact, because [as we cyberscrawl] it explains a lot more in a better way than does any competing "theory."

But the same is true, if my scientific ignorance is not too obvious here, of the "atomic theory."  It's a theory accept as a "fact" because it expalains a lot of things better than any competing theory, and it can be used predictively. Those with better scientific backgrounds [most of the sentient population  North America and Europe and Asia] can provide other examples, i'm sure.

In the last few days there have been lengthly posts decrying the failures of US education, and perhaps this is one example.  People are simply unacquainted with the most basic terminology of science and scientific reasoning/theorizing, and hence don't know what sceience is and is not, what a theory does and does not do, what makes a theory valid or invalid, etc...

I wonder if you see any difference between a well-established scientific theory and young earth creationism --- creationists LOVE to "explain" away evolution by saying it is just a "theory".  I suppose that you are going to dismiss what I am about to say because I won't give you ALL of the relevant FACTS and underlying evidence, but here goes Step 1:

Evolutionary theory has its origins in part in Charles Lyell's 1830 book "Principles of Geology", where he articulated the theory of uniformitarism.  He argued that the geologic record is incomplete, that the present is the key to the past, that all of the processes active in the past are still at work today, and that the rate of these processes is constant.  (In case you haven't noticed, young-earth creationism totally ignores this "theory".)  Are you arguing that Lyell's theory is nothing more than liberal arm-chair philosophizing?  If so, you are welcome to join Mr. Ross as a young-earth creationist.

The second pillar of evolutionary theory is Thomas Malthus' 1798 treatise,An Essay on the Principle of Population.  Here he pointed out that population growth, unchecked, would lead to exponential growth of the population.  Hence other factors --- such as competition for available resources --- will eventually come into play and limit population growth.  From there it is a simple mathematical argument to show that organisms showing high reproductive success will leave more descendents in future populations than those with poor reproductive success.  Of course, you may want to argue that mathematics is just "theory".

The third pillar is observable in all kinds of contexts: *heritable* variations in phenotypes affect their reproductive success.  Evidence?  Consider all of the selective breeding that has given us all the difference varieties of dogs, of crop plants, etc.  

Simply put, the basic theory of evolution by natural selection is based on three principal assumptions: (1) there are variations in reproductive success among the members of any populations; (2) some traits related to reproductive success are heritable, and (3) if the traits governing reproductive success are heritable, those with favorable traits will leave more descendents in future generations than those not so favored.  Couple this with Lyell's uniformitarism and you have a perfectly cogent basis for a scientific theory.  You claim this is just armchair theorizing at the same level as young-earth creationism?

You seem not to understand what a scientific theory is.  One cannot "prove" ANY scientific theory the way you seem to demand.  Can you PROVE that you existed yesterday?  Can you PROVE that the sun will appear above the horizon tomorrow?  Can you PROVE that you will die if your air supply is cut off completely for 24 hours?  If so, be my guest.

-- Modified on 2/16/2007 1:28:14 AM

and is quite predictive of the behavior of atoms etc.  What is uncertain in atomic theory is the precise interaction of the electronic cloud surrounding the  nucleus - and thus the physical interaction of atoms with the macro world is somewhat subject to the whims of quantum mechanics... which is why there will be a lower limit to the size of a computer bit.

sorry, but Atomic theory was sort of locked up at the beginning of the 20th century.

you CAN in fact prove scientific theory... if you set the hypothesis correctly and state the assumptions up front.  What is wrong with much of what you quote is that lack of statement and a clear enunciation of the assumptions.  I don't debate the evolutionary theory.... at all!  I just recognize that it is not evolutionary FACT!  which many in the scientific field forget (must be academic alzheimers!)  

Sorry, I also recognize that some theories cannot be "proven" but that some can.  Example two parts hydrogen will combine with one part oxygen in a predictable exothermic reaction to produce water! or... DNA codes for RNA which in turn codes for protein in a very predictable and "readable" fashion...  that is every three bases code for a specific amino acid and the code is redundant...

All proven... so please get a grip on.... you clearly know little about setting hypothesis - clearly stating the starting assumptions and building a logical argument.  To quote the academically "gifted" - publish in PNAS and come back to me! lol

...may I refer you to a good text, such as Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology?  I personally have neither the time nor the inclination to conduct a course on evolutionary biology on this forum.  You also seem to confuse empirical facts with theories: the making of water from oxygen and hydrogen is an observable fact, requiring no theory to explain it.  A similar remark applies to your "example" of DNA coding --- again, no theory is required.

And who are YOU to say what I do and do not know about "clearly stating the starting assumptions and building a logical argument"?  Perhaps my statement of the underlying ASSUMPTIONS of evolutionary theory were too arcane for you?

I also notice that you failed to respond to most of the challenges I issued in my earlier posting.  You also seem to forget --- or be unaware of the fact --- that most scientific theories get VALIDATED rather than PROVEN.  The history of science is filled with examples of once commonly-held theories no longer seriously entertained.  For example, when is the last time you read a scientific document arguing for the aether theory of light transmission?  Notice that the FACTS that the aether theory purported to explain were not brought into question: it was the INTERPRETATION of those facts that was ultimately refuted by contradictory data.  No such refutation of evolutionary theory has yet been discovered.  On the contrary: ongoing evolutionary studies are explaining more and more facts in biology (in particular, human biology)--- or is that of no consequence to you, either?

While we're on the subject, what papers have YOU had published in PNAS?

more to the point... evolutionary biology fails to account for the Cambrian "Explosion."  Odd, that you fail to mention that if anything, molecular biology provides better understanding of evolution than does the fossil record.  As I mentioned in a previous post, the "wobble hyothesis" provides a chemical mechanism (molecular) for evolution to occur (I might add, as does B. Mcclintock's "jumping genes" discovery).  What is interesting on this note is the question of similarity - and the suggestion (or actually question) of "is this the "best" way to accomplish biological organization (specific amino acid sequences) and they evolve that way no matter what?" - or "is it a question of "conservation" and nature hates to reinvent the wheel?"  Interesting question... but remember even with DNA - all is not equal - (mitochondrial DNA is signifigantly different from cellular DNA)!

With respect to your assertion that the combination of hydrogen and oxygen together combine to make water is was and always know as a "Fact"... well... you forget that at one time - that was NOT fact but rather a theory. William Nicholson (in 1800) subjected water to electrolysis demonstrating that it was composed of H and O.  Later Gay-Lussac got the stoicheometry correct.  Theory my boy, it was all theory until demonstrated by a scientific study...

and yes- as I stated in my post - some theories can be proven while others cannot.  and yes, theories come and go with some "trendiness" associated with them..... "big Bang" vs "steady state" vs "expansion and collapse".......  

As I stated earlier, the assumptions of evolution are not well born by the complete fossil record - or at least not as stated and presented.  That there are alternative mechanisms to "explain" life - is largely ignored by the scientific community.  There is no shame in acknowledging that we don't have the answer.... what troubles me most about "academicians" is their assertion that because they are in a position of privalege - that their utterances are "truth."  Rather they fail to recognize that their utterances are just that - "utterances" - granted maybe more in line with knowledge gained from the previous experiences of themselves and others... but no more valid in some respects that the utterances of Pamela Sue Anderson.  It is the arrogance and lack of accountability that bugs me.

How this plays out - why does it bother me?  Global Climate Change.... A failure to present all the arguments and models as just that - MODELS.... based on best guess assumptions.  And few in the academic community offer real solutions... seriously, consider what they offer!  little.  Make no mistake - if they are correct about global climate change - we are in for some serious economic upheaval... but what should we do that would be acceptable?  have you heard their solutions - contrast and compare the kyoto and motreal treaties.... two solutions designed by those sanctimonious scientists to solve specific "global climate change" problems.  But one exacerbates the other.  Now someone should have been held accountable... who?

Nah, most scientists are way to arrogant to even begin to understand what I am talking about or admit that they are one part of the problem.  hence - the reconstruction of the academic system to put together what society as a whole needs... and not a self perpetuating money machine.

Nicholson formulated a specific HYPOTHESIS about the structure of water, tested it, and validated it, and Gay-Lussac "finished" the job.  Elevating that work to the same level as the theory of evolution is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?  Just what GENERAL insights about the world did Nicholson and Gay-Lussac's work provide us with?  How many additional testable hypotheses?

Also, you must admit that the water molecule is a much simpler system than a biological organism --- let alone the panoply of life as a whole.

You find it "odd" that I fail to discuss the importance of molecular biology in evolution vis-a-vis the fossil record.  Since I mentioned NEITHER in my posting, I find it strange that you find my omission "odd". If you recall, I didn't even mention Darwin's name in my posting.

I also find it curious that you bring up as a question the distinction between "optimality" and "conservation" in understanding mechanisms.  The evidence favoring "conservation" is extremely strong; nature seems much more concerned with what Herbert Simon referred to as "satisficing" than with optimality per se.  Recent work in "evo devo" --- evolutionary developent --- has shown that the development of differing animal forms is based on a set of genes that appear to be incredibly similar among all animals, with modules of genes controlling various aspects of development.  The development of the various animal forms seems to be due to a small number of regulator genes that collectively fit the activity of the common genes to the development of the particular organism. (See, for example, Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean B. Carroll.)

As to the existence of "alternative mechanisms to 'explain' life" --- can you acquaint me with any SCIENTIFIC hypotheses that are truly alternative to the theory of evolution?

You seem to be disturbed by the fact that evolutionary theory hasn't explained EVERYTHING about life.  Consider, for example, the "Cambrian explosion".  It is quite reasonable to suppose that, given the relatively small differences that seem to exist between organisms' genomes, that the "explosion" was due to the appearance of one or more regulatory genes which conferred the developmental plasticity that was expressed in the relatively rapid appearance of a diversity of animal groups.  (I would remind you of Steven Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria, which is getting reinforced in today's work.)  This is a perfectly respectable hypothesis.  Testing it directly is clearly out of the question: I know of no area in the world where conditions like those of the pre-Cambrian are to be found today.  Yet ongoing studies in evo devo certainly point to a possible answer to the problem.

understanding water, and its interaction with other chemicals is as important as understanding the connection between mice and men (reference intended).  And yea, we can find evidence of fos, jun and other regulatory elements in primitative life forms... which I did offer is supportive of evolution.... sheese, dude - when someone agrees with ya, take a chill pill.... but seriously, that alone - and with ALL the evidence neither proves evolution nor does it support any other alternative explanation for the diversity of life.  And yes, divine intervention is a possible explanation for the diversity of life.  As I say, that is as plausable as any other explanation.  but do I think that is proven? no, I don't.  But you put forth a specific challenge:
"Just what GENERAL insights about the world did Nicholson and Gay-Lussac's work provide us with?  How many additional testable hypotheses?"

Actually quite a bit, for understanding the chemistry of water gave rise to an understanding of the hydrogen bond (no bell prize to Pauling in '54) which helps explain a whole lot of biology dude!  The interaction of amino acids in protein folding, the interaction of proteins with substrates carrying out an enzymatic reaction, the interaction of DNA in terms of replication of the genetic code... yea what other general insights - course - to you that is all a moot point.  Since EVERY frickin thing is 'splained by evolutionary THEORY!  sheese.

psudoscientists who cannot understand that there are HUGE differences between that which is provable and that which is theory.

Sorry dude, you've read a lotta books... me, I would rather write them.

Strange argument.  All those guys worrying about quarks and neutralinos and such like clearly haven't been told that Atomic theory has been locked up.  Or do you not consider subatomic physics to be a part of atomic physics?

...be SCIENTIFIC.  I'm sorry: divine intervention is NOT a "scientific" theory. In regards to Pauling's work, you aren't asserting that Nicholson/Gay Lussac provided THE sole theoretical basis for Pauling's work, are you?

Your rhetoric has run away with you again: I have NEVER asserted that evolutionary theory "explains EVERY frickin thing".  I sometimes get the feeling that you hear what a lot of OTHER people have said when you read what I have written.  That is a sure-fire recipe for misunderstanding.

By the bye, it was Karl Popper who showed that a scientific theory canNOT be proven by inductive logic --- it can only be falsified.  (Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934).  (If you can show that Popper was wrong, you will become famous overnight.)  Consequently, proving a theory like evolutionary theory would require deductive logic, which in turn would require the assumption of a whole body of axioms, the establishment of which would pose incredible empirical problems, since there is no way to determine whether they hold true today --- let alone 1.3 billion years ago.  So even if "proving" evolutionary theory were possible in principle, the epistomological problems would be insuperable.

-- Modified on 2/16/2007 9:06:57 PM

I gather that you do not like my response.... too bad.  By the way, who says that divine intergention is not a scientific theory?  As I say, state the assumptions up front, and justify them and you can proceed.  Suppose - lets just suppose that Evolution occurs.  Why? why this particular set of circumstances, this life form, why l-amino acids instead of d-amino acids?  why?  so, even with evolution and only physical constants dictating all in the universe - you still have questions as to WHY?  is that  what bugs ya so much?  Again - it comes to faith... some put faith in the faulty reasoning of man.  You for example.

and by the by, I never argued that Evolution was provable - in fact I stated just the opposite - that it is indeed unprovable.  and therefore theory... (not a hypothesis  - in the true sense of the word).... but don't let that stop ya... you seem to be on a role....  again, your arrogance proceeds ya.  lots of luck with that!

And dude, I have enough fame... I seek less.

I would like to take the temperature of this exchange down a bit.  If I come across as "arrogant" to you, I apologize; my intention has been to trade ideas, not belabor you.

On one point, you are quite right: I do NOT accept divine intervention as a scientific theory for the simple reason that it is not falsifiable.  Furthermore, invoking Occam's razor, I prefer to seek explanations for HOW things have come to be as they are without adding unwarranted assumptions about the direct intervention of God.  The question of WHY is an entirely different one --- one that I view as a religious question, not a scientific one.

I believe that, when the universe came into being, its future was immanent --- the processes that led to life were already in place, and what has come to pass is the natural --- if seemingly improbable --- outcome of the operation of those processes.  That, to me, is part of the great beauty of our universe --- it seems perfectly capable of providing life as we know it without additional micromanagement from its creator.

A part of the miracle of this universe is that it should provide a life form with the capabilities of interacting with God on the spiritual plane.  I believe that our spiritual capacities are also the product of evolution; in that respect I agree with much of what Tielhard de Chardin wrote many years ago.  Perhaps I should say that our own spirituality was immanent in the universe from its very beginnings?

I see that I have been rather obtuse with respect to the "provability" of evolution.  The basic reason for my position is that evolutionary theory is the only theory I know of that makes sense out of the biology of this world.  I'm sorry: ongoing, continual micromanagement of this universe by its creator is a concept I find ugly because it presupposes the notion that God didn't get it right the first time.

nature of God... but do not "Describe" God.  How could they?  Having said that however, it is both probably, and possible that what God created was a mechanism to further life recognizing that the to be developed ecosystems with never remain static.  To fail to recognize the kinetic nature of the universe would have been the "not getting it right."  That is what amuses me with respect to climatic change... whether it is - or is not happening - whether it is - or is not - caused or accelerated by man - are all moot points.  That climate has and will continue to change- is a certainty.  

Whenever I doubt the hand of God in the universe... I always return to the sad fate of the cat.....  in Schroedinger's box.  But then again, what did he know?

... butI am a little confused about your description of the universe as "kinetic".  Ecosystems and environments change and develop constantly in very comprehensible ways, ecologists refer to it as "succession".  Granted, many events can lead to novel outcomes, but ecologists rarely expect an environment to remain constant.

I also agree that climate change is a normal, ongoing part of the environment.  The prime question seems to be what, if anything, can we realistically DO about it?  I don't believe that I am any more optimistic on that point than you are.  Irrespective of what might be TECHNOLOGICALLY feasible, I, too, believe that the POLITICAL problems involved are virtually insurmountable.  That fact, however, should not discourage us from doing what we can do to ameliorate the effects of global warming.

Unfortunately, when I think of the hand of God in the universe, I tend to think of Nazi Germany, Rwanda, and Darfur (not to mention the holywars ongoing in the Middle East, etc., etc.) --- and I think of the sad fate of all those "children of God" who have been abandoned by their god.


-- Modified on 2/17/2007 6:40:54 PM

you confuse what man interprets as the "will of God" with the actual "will of God."  You tend to think of the Acts of God as represented by the "acts of man."  

And so sorry to disagree, scientists get stuff wrong almost every single day....  but, and here's the rub, they seldom admit to their mistakes and often are highly punative to those holding different views.

the nature of the physical attributes ascribable to the elements... an the gross structure of the atom?  yea, pretty much settled.  Subatomic physics - a bit different.  no argument there.  but with respect to the nucleus - and electron cloud - that's pretty much a done deal... refinements - sure - but anyone can go into the lab and reproduce those experiments proving the basic structure of the atom in any physics lab or p chem lab today.... in fact - in college level physical chemistry, it is often required.

Far from interpreting those atrocities to "acts of God", I am saying that I have trouble with a god that would intervene to change species but would NOT intervene to save his closest children from the atrocities I alluded to.  It is God's NON-acts that trouble me.

"So sorry to disagree, scientists get stuff wrong almost every single day..."  Another of your straw men, BSD: I never implied that scientists don't make mistakes.  Quite often, when a "mistake" makes it into the literature, there are commonly a horde of critics ready to call the errant author to account --- if the paper in question makes to publication in the first place.  Journal space being as expensive and limited as it is, I doubt that many "mea culpas" are going to make it into print without further results.

Yes, authors CAN get abusive towards people they strongly disagree with.  You have already provided me with some good examples of that.  Scientific publishing being somewhat of a performance art, authors often exhibit performer's temperaments.  It is not an attractive trait, but it is understandable, given the enormous pressures towards publication and the many obstacles to be overcome.

I can't help wondering if YOU have been the target of such attacks.  Many evolutionary biologists are not going to take kindly to what seems to me to be a version of "old earth creationism".  Perhaps I am wrong --- it would be neither the first nor the last time --- but I can't help wondering if you feel that evolutionary theory must include God in order to be scientifically valid.  If so, we are on opposite sides of a very high fence.

in my scientific career- which is now behind me... and I am actually on my 3rd career! lol!  which gives me a greater perspective.  

I do not feel that one form of evolutionary theory has to have a divine being in it... but I am pointing out that to ridicule those who hold that it makes more sense for there to be an overiding intelligence guiding evolution is somewhat pejorative, don't cha think?   I mean where is the open minded scientist...

With respect to scientific publishing.... it is a scream that journals (which by and large are paid for by YOUR and MY TAX DOLLARS!) cost what they cost... I sit on the editorial boards of two very well respected journals... guess what I get paid for being an editor?  $0,000.00 per paper... yup... gasp... I know... pays for a night of extasy with the provider known as "rosey palm"! lol!  

I am also sorry, but you have made my point better than I can... the entire system needs reform...  It really cannot continue as is...

WRT - publication errors... and mistakes... SOME - a pitiful small number - get caught.  I know, I've been in the difficult position, on more than one occasion, of finding that what was published - and what was true - were at opposite ends of the spectrum... once I spent 10 man years (all the dudes and dudettes in my department) trying to prove one lousy table in one lousy paper in the NEJM.  At the end of our efforts - we realized that the control published in the NEJM was incorrect... and misleading... causing SEVERAL drug companies to abandon a promising approach to a particular type of therapeutic.  yea... academic science.... it just frickin wonderful... After this work, I tried through a legit publishing of a work refuting the NEJM paper... rejected... but by a very strange twist of fate, the editor of the journal that we had petitioned realized what I was saying - published the paper with a forward concering the appropriate selection of controls in experimental methods....

And now let me tell ya about the academic, "neutral" consultants... Millions per year paid to consultants in academia - just to keep em happy... especially if ya have to go before a regulatory board... and guess where the regulatory board gets its "consultants"!  ya get three guesses... and the choices are 1) academia and 2) academia and 3) academia.... lol!  by the way, some of these consultants (that I have delt with) have all the subtlety of a mafia hitman...  Actually thats an insult to the mafia.

With respect to the open discussion among peers... usually it is done by snipeing at one-anothers post-docs or grad students... rarely do the "big men" of science deal with equals directly - it is usually behind closed doors... where the greatest damage is done... and one does not get "a day in court"!  These are just my observations... direct.

Change it - or live with the consequences of where this leads.  Ya Want the references to all this.. more than happy to provide them - with a CDA (or if ya prefer an NDA) in place between you and me.  AND I DO ENFORCE CONTRACTS to the fullest extent of the law.

With respect to God.... YOU failed to read what I wrote... God provided the general rules of the universe... but to intervene in each and every circumstance would be a bit of "why write the rules..."  it is up to man to make the choices... and our capacity for bad.... is just as awesome as our capacity for good.  

Read Job.



-- Modified on 2/17/2007 11:43:55 PM